STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- An appreciation for etiquette remains important even in today’s face-paced society. That’s why when Judith Martin speaks, a lot of people pay attention. Popularly known as “Miss Manners,” she’s been providing advice for over 35 years on everything from setting a table to setting rude people straight, in the nicest possible way of course. Martin’s syndicated column is published in over 200 newspapers worldwide.

In her column appearing in the Advance on Nov. 30, a reader expressed concern for the welfare of two young neighborhood children who are friends of her 7-year-old daughter. These children, along with five siblings ranging from 6 to 15 years of age, are being raised by their single mother. The two kids, the complainant wrote, “have a horrific odor problem” such that when they enter the reader’s home, “it is not long before I feel ill from the odor.” The reader thought about speaking with the school nurse because “something has to be done” but didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

Now let’s stop right there for a moment.

Consistently poor hygiene in children is a well-established indicator of neglect. Consider, for example, that the U.S. Administration for Children and Families lists “severe body odor” second in its list of five warning signs of child neglect.

Similarly, Child Help, a leading national nonprofit organization dedicated to helping victims of abuse and neglect, has “poor hygiene” and “body odor” as its first of seven indicators of child neglect.

In my years of experience in the Family Court, both as an attorney and a judge, I saw countless cases where poor hygiene was the only apparent sign of a much more serious, underlying pattern of neglect and even abuse.

It’s really all a matter of common sense. Caring, responsible parents do not allow their children to be consistently beset by bad odors. Therefore, where kids are so afflicted, it’s reasonable to be concerned about what else may be going on in their homes.

While this doesn’t necessarily mean that something is seriously wrong, it does mean that an investigation is imperative. The urgency becomes even greater where the children are young and unable to sound any alarm about the situation in which they find themselves.

WILLFUL BLINDNESS

So what was Miss Manners’ advice to the reader concerned about children who are displaying well-documented indicators of neglect or abuse? “How about planning an activity for the children (like bubbles) that involves water and soap?” she suggested. Don’t bring the matter to the attention of the school nurse, she continued, because that “will not be considered helpful.”

Instead, opining that the problem is “not solvable” by the reader, she advised “treating the children to some good, clean fun while they are with you, and hope for the best when they are not.”

Here’s a memo to Martin: Thousands of kids are dead, and hundreds of thousands more have been consigned to suffer horrifically because well-meaning people, upon observing troubling signs of neglect or abuse, closed their eyes, walked away, and hoped for the best.

Which is why Martin’s answer was stunningly stupid.

Given her extensive readership, it’s guaranteed to perpetuate the suffering of at least some neglected and abused kids by dissuading concerned people from reporting their suspicions to the child protective service.

That, of course, is exactly what the reader in question should have been advised to do, although contacting the school nurse as the reader contemplated would have been a step in the right direction.

I contacted Martin by email, summarizing what I’ve said here, and requesting that she amend her answer to acknowledge the troubling nature of the reader’s query, and offer an appropriate response to it. She has not responded.

Child protective laws recognize a delicate balance between the government’s right, indeed duty, to protect children from abuse and neglect, versus the right of parents to be free from unreasonable interference with the parent-child relationship.

These competing considerations are also in play with respect to the reporting of suspected instances of child mistreatment.

Generally speaking, private individuals who reasonably believe that children may be abused or neglected enjoy immunity from suit for reporting the matter to the child protective service or other authorized government agency.

There is no reason, therefore, for a concerned person to refrain from making a good-faith report of child mistreatment out of fear that he or she might turn out to be wrong. In fact, these reports can usually be made anonymously.

Since my Family Court tenure included several years as the presiding judge of the citywide foster care review term, I handled literally thousands of cases involving abused and neglected children. And let me tell you, nothing is sadder than witnessing a dead or horribly injured child who could have been saved if somebody had bothered to report a worrisome sign that something might be wrong.